Jane Clare Jones on purity spirals

[IamSarah]

Really insightful post on X the platform formally known as Twitter I feel it's worth sharing on here:

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1745760345954689255?s=46&t=NGJBRqkXgp1UazF5I8yjXA

Ah. yes... the one where you told us all that Alan Cumming was factually correct particularly when he discussed 'culture wars' and where he then called out the Prime Minister for declaring that there are only two sexes as being horrific.

No. People were pointing out the inaccuracies and the inconsistencies in your arguments.

On money being accepted well with any of this stuff where people criticise - whether it’s KJK or other for doing it ‘wrong’ I’d say if you want you can start another appeal and do it the ‘right’ way, according to your own views

Tbf it’s easy to sit back and put the boot in, less so to take the lead and change things

And I haven’t started a fund, therefore I’m grateful for those who stand up to do it. Even if it doesn’t match some exacting criteria

This is a tough battle it’s going to take a lot. It’s far easier to be superior imo if it’s criticising people, less so to be the one in the firing line

Are we really doing this shit AGAIN?

Luckily we now have a couple of great articles to link to to save ourselves some time!

Defence of Kellie Jay by Heather Brunskill Evans:

https://savageminds.substack.com/p/policing-adult-human-females

Defence of Kellie Jay by Julian Vigo:

https://savageminds.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-the-near-murder-of-kellie

Read the Jean Hatchet blog. I have no reason to disbelieve Jean's version of events, first I've heard of it. But I know of Jean and she's done amazing things for women so if that's true, it's pretty shitty of KJK

The screenshot of actual tweets KJK has made about Muslims are abhorrent and I fully support what WPUK wrote. Again, first I'd heard of it.

In general I'm not a fan because way back she wrote one of the only truly transphobic things I've ever read here.

Is it so transphobic you can't even repeat it?

It must be very transphobic if no one can even provide an archive link or a screenshot!

When pp go on about everyone doing it wrong bar them what does it actually add?

Maybe it’s a way to stall going forward because it seems to suck a lot of energy out of what women are trying to do

If you had started a fund, perhaps you would be grateful to those who had donated, instead of starting a thread reproving your donors for their associations.

Just a thought.

I probably would be grateful but I admit I have no idea what half the thread is about, in terms of names on X so can’t really comment on that part

I'm pleased the thread has moved on from debating my character, while I've been eating my tea, fascinating though that interlude was.

Are we supposed to be surprised that a Tory MP is aligned with US Republicans now?

I’m still waiting for my Christian MegaBucks. It’s been bloody ages an ‘all.

Good to hear that someone got funded tho!

She wrote something about how she was shopping with her kids when she saw a TW with his kids so told her kid loudly about what an absolute state the TW looked, in pretty vile lalanguage. It must have been so humiliating for the TW child and seemed totally unnecessary. That's why I thought it was transphobic. It got deleted almost immediately but has always stayed with me about the kind of person she came across as so I can't see her as any kind of role model

I can't see any evidence of direct links with the US Christian Right on those links.

The first two are just links to the Nat Con site - this is a British organisation.

Why did you pick out principles 4,8 and 10? 4 just states that the organisation is Christian focused. In England and Wales, 46% of people describe themselves as Christian, so this is quite unremarkable. But that principle also advocates the protection of and respect for those with other faiths, and ends "Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes."

Principle 10 is an anti-racist statement. Why do you have a problem with this?

The third one is an opinion piece by a Christian supporter of NatCon. Nothing in there about the US Christian Right.

And then two articles about Miriam Cates. Nothing in there that I can see about the US Christian Right.

What Jean Hatchet blog?

What’s wrong with kemi, @AdamRyan ?

See half the time people are so blinkered by their own political prejudice they actually don’t understand what other people are seeing or saying. Or maybe I mean they infer things that simply aren’t there because of their own preconceptions.

It's quite simple really. I suspect most of this board gardened for the OP. We're fucked off to see another thread imploring us to carefully cleanse ourselves of sin right-wing germs. If you want to lecture people about how we're going to accidentally usher in a dystopian future by talking to the wrong people, you shouldn't be letting our credit cards talk to your plants either.

Except that isn't what happened and is a total straw man argument.

The link in the page you posted 🙄

I did read it. My post wasn't a summary of Cates' beliefs, business practices, church membership or any of the other stuff in the article, because those weren't the topic at hand. You said she was linked to the American right, and the only part referencing the American right is the part saying she spoke at a conference which was funded by an American Republican donor. The part you'd already quoted in your previous post.

Yes it is what happened.

It's quite conceivable that you are genuinely too socially inept to see that is what you did, and thus don't think that's what happening, but you are still wrong. Person after person has fed back the same thing to you.

It is to be hoped that this will be a learning moment for you. Note that the person who has wholeheartedly supported you in this threadalso leapt to criticising someone else for accepting "Christian Nationalist" funding, because that's the message you sent out in your OP: people should be audited for their associations and their funding.

But unaccountably, you expect to impose those moral standards on other people, but not to live by them yourself. You think you should be able to collect funding from anyone who donates without being tainted by their views on totally different issues.

Principle 4:

No nation can long endure without humility and gratitude before God and fear of his judgment that are found in authentic religious tradition. For millennia, the Bible has been our surest guide, nourishing a fitting orientation toward God, to the political traditions of the nation, to public morals, to the defense of the weak, and to the recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred. The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, and as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike. Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private. At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes.

I always interpret "living in fear of gods judgement" as a fairly extreme interpretation of Christianity. Same as using the Bible to guide public life and "first among sources". It's a very creationist view.

Anyway, to try to get back on topic, I agree with JCJ on this which is why I'm always on here banging on about some posters motivations:

[In GC spaces] There is a great deal of explicitly anti-feminist discourse (hi Matt and James), lots of people who are more or less explicitly anti-abortion, not inconsiderable homophobia, and also a lot of 'great replacement' theory discourse, as well as covid conspiracy and general QAnon type stuff. For many feminist women this is a problem. They fear that the energy of the UK GC movement could be fed into the hands of very powerful, and increasingly dominant, populist forces who will use that against women and gay people and also ethnic minorities.

And? This is a Christian organisation. They hold Christian views. This is legal. Do you object to all religions or just Christianity? Do you believe everyone should be an atheist and religion should be banned? I don't understand what point you're trying to make at all.